A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why the 800E is more important than ever



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 22nd 12, 11:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:07:20 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
[]
Then you might as well use a 2.3Mp camera. All those extra pixels are
a waste of time.


No, cropping may allow you greater compositional freedom. Crop after
taking.

If what you use are 6 x 4 prints, then it's what's on those prints which
matters.


Now you are down to 21.6K pixels


I make it 2.16 MP at 300 pixels per inch.


You are right.

If you are going to get down to this by cropping you are going to
throw away 94% of the image. Isn't this a little overdoing it?

From what you have written above, I doubt if you understand the
relevance of 36 MP.


Having 36 MP will not help my photography per se, as I don't use
high-resolution output devices. However, I do regularly process 124 MP
images, albeit not from a digital camera. To benefit from 36 MP will
require good technique, and really isn't applicable to the type of images
I take. If it will benefit you, that's great. I would benefit from a
larger sensor for higher sensitivity, but I'm not prepared to take the
size, weight and cost penalty. My compromise is currently an APS-C DSLR.

Fair enough.

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #22  
Old March 23rd 12, 01:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever

David J Taylor wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message


If you're viewing at 100% zoom (pixel peeping) that's about what is
expected. Supposing you resample the 10 MP and 16 MP images to your
native display resolution. Can you see any difference then? Supposing
you print both at the same physical size - any difference then?


I could see a difference on screen at less the 100%, but as for seeing
it in a print, it would depend on the print size. Certainly not 8x10
or 11x14.


So you haven't made prints?


Of course he has not. He doesn't own a camera and thus doesn't
make prints.

Nor compared at native display resolution?
Just seen the comparison at pixel-peeping level?


Just seen the comparison on some website, he has.

RichA doesn't really care about realistic results nor about the
final output ... he just wants to stir the pot.

-Wolfgang
  #23  
Old March 23rd 12, 01:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever

Trevor wrote:

Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full screen
size is NO comparison at all.


Of course it is, when that's the output medium.

Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.


Which is a very useful comparison, when the output medium is
6x4 prints.

I'm amazed
at the people who are so stupid as to deride any real comparison as "pixel
peeping",


"real comparison"? So you habitually print your photos at several
meters high by several meters wide and only view them with the
nose to the print?

I'm amazed you can see your subjects at all at that distance and
not just single pixels. But maybe I am stupid for wanting to
see the whole image and trying for mostly normal viewing distances.

the same idiots who call checking a camera image or histogram
"chimping" I suppose.


You suppose a lot when the day is long.

I guess it makes them feel superior when obviously
they don't have a clue.


How revealing. How very revealing. It's clear you try to
feel superior on a technical basis because you cannot compete
on image content, and as to comparing you really don't have a
clue (obvious to everyone).

-Wolfgang
  #24  
Old March 23rd 12, 02:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever


"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full screen
size is NO comparison at all.


If you are producing images for the monitor, then it's the ultimate test.


And you need an 800E for that! I don't thinks so!!!!!!!!!!



Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.


If what you use are 6 x 4 prints, then it's what's on those prints which
matters.


And you need an 800E for 6x4" prints, I don't think so!!!


I'm amazed at the people who are so stupid as to deride any real
comparison as "pixel peeping", the same idiots who call checking a camera
image or histogram "chimping" I suppose. I guess it makes them feel
superior when obviously they don't have a clue.


Knowing exactly how your kit is performing is important of course, but
it's also important to understand the limitations of the output medium you
are using. No point in paying grossly excessive amounts for optics or a
camera when you're never going to use its full resolution capabilities.
You may need 36 MP, I don't for what I do.


Exactly, so why are you discussing the 800E here?

Trevor.


  #25  
Old March 23rd 12, 02:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever


"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
If what you use are 6 x 4 prints, then it's what's on those prints which
matters.

Now you are down to 21.6K pixels


I make it 2.16 MP at 300 pixels per inch.


You are right.

If you are going to get down to this by cropping you are going to
throw away 94% of the image. Isn't this a little overdoing it?


Sure gives that standard lens some extra reach though! :-) :-)

Trevor.


  #26  
Old March 23rd 12, 02:45 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever

"Trevor" wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full screen
size is NO comparison at all.


If you are producing images for the monitor, then it's the ultimate test.


And you need an 800E for that! I don't thinks so!!!!!!!!!!


Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.


If what you use are 6 x 4 prints, then it's what's on those prints which
matters.


And you need an 800E for 6x4" prints, I don't think so!!!

I'm amazed at the people who are so stupid as to deride any real
comparison as "pixel peeping", the same idiots who call checking a camera
image or histogram "chimping" I suppose. I guess it makes them feel
superior when obviously they don't have a clue.


Knowing exactly how your kit is performing is important of course, but
it's also important to understand the limitations of the output medium you
are using. No point in paying grossly excessive amounts for optics or a
camera when you're never going to use its full resolution capabilities.
You may need 36 MP, I don't for what I do.


Exactly, so why are you discussing the 800E here?


The D800E as such is apparently of little use for
David's purposes, but a 36MP camera might well be. Just
like that 41MP or whatever it is cellphone camera, with
a 36MP camera and a 50mm f/1.4 lens, or maybe a 20mm
lens for that matter, the 2MP that is actually used
might be any 2MP in the whole image...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #27  
Old March 23rd 12, 03:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever


"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...
You may need 36 MP, I don't for what I do.


Exactly, so why are you discussing the 800E here?


The D800E as such is apparently of little use for
David's purposes, but a 36MP camera might well be. Just
like that 41MP or whatever it is cellphone camera, with
a 36MP camera and a 50mm f/1.4 lens, or maybe a 20mm
lens for that matter, the 2MP that is actually used
might be any 2MP in the whole image...


If I only wanted 2MPixel, *I* sure as hell wouldn't be forking out for (and
carrying) a D800E. I doubt he will either!

Trevor.


  #28  
Old March 23rd 12, 04:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Trevor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 874
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever


"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full screen
size is NO comparison at all.


Of course it is, when that's the output medium.


For a D800E?

Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.


Which is a very useful comparison, when the output medium is
6x4 prints.


For a D800E?

I'm amazed
at the people who are so stupid as to deride any real comparison as
"pixel
peeping",


"real comparison"? So you habitually print your photos at several
meters high by several meters wide and only view them with the
nose to the print?


Not "habitually" but if I can't at all, then what's the point of buying
expensive camera equipment?


I'm amazed you can see your subjects at all at that distance and
not just single pixels. But maybe I am stupid for wanting to
see the whole image and trying for mostly normal viewing distances.


Whatever works for you, but why comment on the D800E at all if you don't
need it and are never going to buy one?


the same idiots who call checking a camera image or histogram
"chimping" I suppose.


You suppose a lot when the day is long.


Well I see those stupid comments all the time, just like I see people
writing drivel about 6x4" prints etc. in a thread about the D800E.

I guess it makes them feel superior when obviously
they don't have a clue.


How revealing. How very revealing. It's clear you try to
feel superior on a technical basis because you cannot compete
on image content, and as to comparing you really don't have a
clue (obvious to everyone).


Cllear to you perhaps, but fortunately your opinion doesn't count for much!
:-)

Trevor.


  #29  
Old March 23rd 12, 06:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_16_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,116
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
[]
(6 x 4 prints)
I make it 2.16 MP at 300 pixels per inch.


You are right.

If you are going to get down to this by cropping you are going to
throw away 94% of the image. Isn't this a little overdoing it?

[]
Regards,

Eric Stevens


I'm sure that you know that isn't how it works. If I did just use a 2 MP
crop from my 12 MP full DSLR image, the result would have all the
imperfections of which the pixel-peepers complain. I tend to try and
frame images precisely at the time of taking, and to take at full
resolution "just in case". I could adopt a slightly sloppier framing
approach (perhaps for those shots where there is rapidly developing action
or where you are holding the camera above your head - "point and shoot",
and then know that I could still crop and get a good quality image. Or I
could use a lower taking resolution if I knew it was "only" for the Web or
6 x 4 prints.

The 36 MP Nikon D800E is not aimed at making 6 x 4 prints, though.

Cheers,
David

  #30  
Old March 23rd 12, 07:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David J Taylor[_16_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,116
Default Why the 800E is more important than ever

"Trevor" wrote in message
...
[]
If you are producing images for the monitor, then it's the ultimate
test.


And you need an 800E for that! I don't thinks so!!!!!!!!!!


Neither do I

If what you use are 6 x 4 prints, then it's what's on those prints
which matters.


And you need an 800E for 6x4" prints, I don't think so!!!


Neither do I

Exactly, so why are you discussing the 800E here?

Trevor.


Because the sensor and lens resolutions needed depend on the output medium
(including viewing distance), and the final system resolution which can
then be achieved. The question has been raised by the OP - is the D800e
"needed" by the best lenses? A related question is what size of print or
display device would be needed to see the difference between the 800 and
800E? (Apart from seeing the aliasing artefacts and moiré, that is.)

David

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
very important for your life [email protected] Digital Photography 0 March 28th 07 04:28 PM
Which is more important? TheDave© 35mm Photo Equipment 152 October 5th 06 07:35 PM
[SI] Two Important Updates Al Denelsbeck 35mm Photo Equipment 2 September 1st 04 09:33 PM
Which do you consider more important...... [email protected] 35mm Photo Equipment 22 June 30th 04 07:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.